On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Jan-Philip Gehrcke
<jgehrcke.googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> for the short time I am dealing with MD, I am wondering why the term
> "force field" was established and is so much more common than
> "potential". In my eyes, we are dealing with parameters for potential
> functions. Would it be weird or even wrong to use the term "Amber 99 SB
> potential" in a publication?
>
> Thanks for clarification,
>
> Jan-Philip
I do not think your term would be wrong.
--
Dr. Vitaly V. Chaban, 430 Hutchison Hall, Chem. Dept.
Univ. Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627-0216
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Mon Nov 14 2011 - 11:30:04 PST
